Allometry and sexually dimorphic traits in male anurans

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1154-1159

  Schulte Hostedde, A I ^a   Kuula, S ^a   Martin, C ^a   Schank, C C M ^a   Lesbarreres D ^a  

^a LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

American toad; Bull frog; Green frog; Morphology; Sexual dimorphism; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; FROG; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MALE; MORPHOLOGY; ORNAMENTATION; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION; TOAD;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; FEMALE; FROG; HISTOLOGY; MALE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; TOAD;

ANIMALS; BIOMETRY; BUFONIDAE; FEMALE; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; MALE; RANA CATESBEIANA; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

ANURA; BUFO AMERICANUS; RANA CLAMITANS;

EID: 79955029463     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02256.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
2. Bonduriansky, R. 2007. Sexual selection and allometry: a reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61: 838.
3. Bonduriansky, R. & Day, T. 2003. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57: 2450.
4. Bosch, J. & Marquez, R. 2000. Tympanum fluctuating asymmetry, body size and mate choice in female midwife toads (Alytes obstetricans). Behaviour 137: 1211-1222.
5. Cuervo, J.J. & Møller, A.P. 2009. The allometric pattern of sexually size dimorphic feather ornaments and factors affecting allometry. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 1503-1515.
6. Emerson, S.B. 1978. Allometry and jumping in frogs: helping the twain to meet. Evolution 32: 551-564.
7. Green, A.J. 1992. Positive allometry is likely with mate choice, competitive display and other functions. Anim. Behav. 43: 170-172.
8. Hetherington, T.E. 1994. Sexual differences in the tympanic frequency responses of the American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96: 1186-1188.
9. Kodric-Brown, A.R., Sibly, M. & Brown, J.H. 2006. The allometry of ornaments and weapons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103: 8733-8738.
10. LaBarbera, M. 1989. Analyzing body size as a factor in ecology and evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20: 97-117.
11. Lee, J.C. 2001. Evolution of a secondary sexual dimorphism in the toad, Bufo marinus. Copeia 2001: 928-935.
12. Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical Ecology, 2nd edn. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
13. Miaud, C., Guyétant, R. & Elmberg, J. 1999. Variations in life-history traits in the common frog Rana temporaria (Amphibia: Anura): a literature review and new data from the French Alps. J. Zool. (Lond.) 249: 61-73.
14. Monnet, J.-M. & Cherry, M.I. 2002. Sexual size dimorphism in anurans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 2301-2307.
15. Petrie, M. 1992. Are all secondary sexual display structures positively allometric and, if so why? Anim. Behav. 43: 173-175.
16. Purgue, A.P. 1997. Tympanic sound radiation in the bullfrog Rana catesbeiana. J. Comp. Physiol. A 181: 438-445.
17. Sagvik, J. & Uller, T. 2008. The role of male and female body size for amplexus and fertilization success in the moor frog (Rana arvalis): a laboratory test. In: The Moorfrog, Rana arvalis. Recent Research and Conservation Measures (D. Glandt & R. Jehle, eds). pp. 151-158. J. Field Herpetol. Suppl. 13.
18. Schulte-Hostedde, A.I. & Schank, C.M.M. 2009. Secondary sexual traits and individual quality in male green frogs (Rana clamitans). J. Herpetol. 43: 89-95.
19. Schulte-Hostedde, A.I., Zinner, B., Millar, J.S. & Hickling, G.J. 2005. Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology 86: 155-163.
20. Zug, G.R., Vitt, L.J. & Caldwell, J.P. 2001. Herpetology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.